Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Systems and Services > OS X

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 11, 2009, 12:20 AM   #1
Porsche1209
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
File vault affect battery life?

As I am heading off to college soon, I am looking for a workable security solution for my mac (I'm ordering a new 15" Macbook Pro in the next 24 hours). Will using File Vault to encrypt my files hurt my battery life due to increased processor usage? If so, by how much?
__________________
Leopard Macbook 2.16ghz C2D, after-market 2 GB of ram and 5400rpm 250 GB hard drive. Boot-camps to XP.
Porsche1209 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2009, 12:22 AM   #2
Dmac77
macrumors 68020
 
Dmac77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Michigan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porsche1209 View Post
As I am heading off to college soon, I am looking for a workable security solution for my mac (I'm ordering a new 15" Macbook Pro in the next 24 hours). Will using File Vault to encrypt my files hurt my battery life due to increased processor usage? If so, by how much?
Firevault really really sucks. I don't know about battery life, but it really slows my iMac down.

I would suggest just creating an encrypted disk image and storing your confidential files in that.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1578

Don
Dmac77 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2009, 12:27 AM   #3
MacDawg
macrumors P6
 
MacDawg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: "Between the Hedges"
^^
I would agree
File Vault won't prevent theft... just loss of personal data
Encrypt a .dmg with Disk Utility and store sensitive data there
The other stuff... who cares... so why waste time/energy/resources encryptiing it?

Woof, Woof - Dawg
MacDawg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 11, 2009, 06:41 AM   #4
angelwatt
Moderator emeritus
 
angelwatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
No, it won't hurt your battery life, not in any meaningful manner. I've been using FileVault for years. I wouldn't listen to others about FileVault "sucking" as they don't know what they're talking about, but it also may not be what you need.
angelwatt is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 15, 2009, 07:56 AM   #5
tekio
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2009
I've been using filevault since leopard came out without any problems & no noticeable effect on the battery life. Using an encrypted dmg still leaves stuff like saved passwords in firefox unencrypted.
__________________
Late 07 MacBook SR, Ipod Shuffle 3g
tekio is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 16, 2009, 07:32 AM   #6
southerndoc
macrumors 6502a
 
southerndoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: USA
Add me to the list of users who are happy with FileVault. I still get 3.5-5 hours of battery life out of my aluminum MacBook. I've not noticed any speed difference, but I'm not utilizing disk heavy apps.
southerndoc is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 03:04 PM   #7
lundehund
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Hey, I've also been using FileVault for about 5 years now but I'm not so sure about the battery life and the speed. Right now I'm downloading things from a website and the processor activity is 10-15%, so that's probably because the data is encrypted before it can be saved. Also, I noticed that applications start faster on a useraccount without FileVault, however that might also be because the user accounts I tried it with have not much stuff in the homefolder.

Well, does anyone know if there's any benchmarks that give a real and not only subjective impressions on how much FV slows down your system? Couldn't find anything but this thread on the web.
lundehund is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2010, 04:05 PM   #8
angelwatt
Moderator emeritus
 
angelwatt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by lundehund View Post
Well, does anyone know if there's any benchmarks that give a real and not only subjective impressions on how much FV slows down your system? Couldn't find anything but this thread on the web.
I found this benchmark on Photozone, which is also recent (Aug 2010). it essentially shows read times are the same, while write speeds are somewhat slower. It doesn't look like the person has a lot of experience running benchmarks so I wouldn't put a lot of stock behind this one benchmark, but the results are about what you would expect.

Application start-up speed shouldn't be effected by FileVault too much since they exist outside your home directory. Only the preference files in your home directory would be getting accessed, and as the linked benchmark shows, read time differences don't really exist. As a note, FileVault went through a bit of a change in Leopard, which made it stable and stores the files differently (switched from sparse image to sparse bundle) so any benchmark pre-Leopard won't be valid for newer machines with the newer OS.
angelwatt is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Systems and Services > OS X

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
17" MBP Battery Life / Put Display to sleep / headphone jack / VZ Access Manager dkhanley MacBook Pro 1 Jul 19, 2011 06:25 PM
New 13" MBP - Concern About Battery Life MJNBGA MacBook Pro 7 Jun 22, 2011 01:36 PM
Better battery life and speed benefits using SSD on 2008 unibody MBP? MrXiro MacBook Pro 6 Feb 27, 2011 09:27 PM
Battery Life Worse on Wi-Fi Than 3G dark55 iPhone Tips, Help and Troubleshooting 3 Feb 23, 2011 08:16 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:59 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC